the 'ignoree losses' issue can be handled with proper AD and MRPB settings. Though, even I am still sceptical about it, sometimes. So far, in my ongoing revision of Kharkov '43 it works as designed; or shall I say historically. Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile), be prepared to be on the list of play-testers, aye?

the 'ignoree losses' issue can be handled with proper AD and MRPB settings. Though, even I am still sceptical about it, sometimes. So far, in my ongoing revision of Kharkov '43 it works as designed; or shall I say historically. Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile), be prepared to be on the list of play-testers, aye?

Klink, Oberst

The ignore losses issue is not working as it should. It should work as it was before the 3.4 patch. Before 3.4 is the default for the game engine and that is how working as designed should be. In other words, ignore losses shouldn't cause the serious problems it does. It is broken. It needs to be fixed. Work arounds to make something work properly makes this obvious.

The magnitude of the problem becomes apparent with the huge number of scenarios that no longer function properly. It's impossible for the regular TOAW player to fix these because they are not all scenario designers nor is there time to play test hundreds of scenarios.

So Shunwick is correct, there is still the fortified and ignore losses problem and yes, they are most certainly biggies.

Ever been in a spot where you really needed support and was told nothing is available, you are on your own for now? Well, I'm beginning to feel that way with TOAW.

No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages :(

Ignore losses don't have nothing to do with this matter. They work as they always worked.

The problem is the "fortified" status which was clearly overrated (on combat results) and this has effect only on present version.

If a defender unit is on ignore losses but mobile or even dig-in (not fortified) the results from combat are sound as they ever were. However if fortified the defender is almost invincible creating unrealistic combat simulations.

Adjusting AD and MRPB make things a bit more realistic but the vast majority of scenarios aren't designed considering those settings.

we all agree that: It's time for 3.5 to be made accessible for the majority of us, the dedicated players and scenario developers. Surely the issues reported by Telumar should have been fixed by now, uh? What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved. Anyway, patience they say is a virtue... though it's been 2 years by now since 3.4 was released and I feel I have little 'virtue' left...

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved.

No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages :(

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved.

That would have required a time machine, since the Ignore Losses issue wasn't brought to our attention till long after work on 3.5 was under way. That's the one 3.4 issue that hasn't been addressed yet.

Well the AA problem seems to be the worst, at least it looks like, as part of the combat process taking playe all over the map it can surely have great impact if one side as air superiority and constantly hammers the other side with ground attacks and doesn't have to pay a price because AA doesn't work.

I really would like to see a hotfix for this, TOAWIII is not playable in this state, at least not in a serious way.

Yes, I see his last login date. From the screenshot you posted his last beta post was in August. Looked like he was working on 3.5 fairly regularly and then nothing. But he is still active on the forum. I guess.

Yes, I see his last login date. From the screenshot you posted his last beta post was in August. Looked like he was working on 3.5 fairly regularly and then nothing. But he is still active on the forum. I guess.

September.

quote:

None of this tells us what we can expect. Sorry to have bothered.

And here I thought "Anything would be appreciated".

It tells me that:

Further progress has been made. We are not S.O.L. The programmer has not lost all interest.

Thank you for the update Bob. I like most members here to do not have access to the DB and was becoming a little dis-hearted by the lack of feed back. I was checking Ralph’s profile regularity and could see that he was logging in every day or so but with no posts I assumed like most other members that he had lost interest. I also understand that Larry Fulkerson was a beta tester and he appears to have abandon TOAW gone over to WiTP AE.

So as a former Intel officer I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.

I think (know) that everybody would love a 3.5 as a Christmas present but if we have to wait then we have to wait.

To Ralph and all the other faceless people who are involved with 3.5, thank you for your efforts to date.

But please keep us in the loop. As my former OC was always telling me “nothing to report is a report”

Cheers John

_____________________________

Thought for the day: If you feel like doing some work, sit down and wait....... The feeling does go away.

Larry Fulkerson has two ongoing WITP:AE AARs (one PBEM, the other vs. the AI) to which he posts in great profusion almost each and every day. (So I doubt he has any time for TOAW now.) Very good reads.

I've been on TOAW rather sporadically the past two years; there were changes to the fortified status in 3.4? I thought it was just the introduction of stacking of terrain effects on top of D-E-F, and a reduction in likelihood of RBC based on it.

Is that the root of the "fortified problem"? I take it any "Ignore Losses problem" is related or equivalent.

Ralph Trickey, now, my recollection is that he has been working on TOAW pro bono for years. Is that true? If so, we shouldn't get overly emotional with long waits. Though I realize some of you are rather old...

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division" - Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall